alextemplet wrote:I agree that, overall, science and religion should remain separate; however, sometimes that just isn't possible or else this entire thread wouldn't exist. Nor do I believe that absolute proof of God's existence would ever be possible, simply because I don't think He'd have left undisputable proof of His presence. If He did, that would make faith unnecessary. I admit that sounds weak, or it does to me, but think about it. If God is as good and merciful and kind as the Bible says He is - as I believe He is - then why would He want people to be forced to believe in Him? So I believe He left just enough evidence - spiritual or natural - to make faith plausible, but not absolute proof.

I agree completely, science and religion are uniquely human endeavors and often affect each other. But as humans and social creatures, we do have to live in a world populated by those of other beliefs. Science has a very basic set of beliefs and assumptions; in addition to helping humanity and all that good stuff, it was designed to be naturalistic and empirical in order to form conclusions that are acceptable to all with similar conceptual devices(human senses) and reasoning(logic). This is why once religion is introduced, it isn't classfied as science. It's philosophy, theology or whatever you want to call it; it requires beliefs and assumptions not implicit in science and that is where things get hairy.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

alextemplet wrote:I agree that, overall, science and religion should remain separate; however, sometimes that just isn't possible or else this entire thread wouldn't exist. Nor do I believe that absolute proof of God's existence would ever be possible, simply because I don't think He'd have left undisputable proof of His presence. If He did, that would make faith unnecessary. I admit that sounds weak, or it does to me, but think about it. If God is as good and merciful and kind as the Bible says He is - as I believe He is - then why would He want people to be forced to believe in Him? So I believe He left just enough evidence - spiritual or natural - to make faith plausible, but not absolute proof.

I agree completely, science and religion are uniquely human endeavors and often affect each other. But as humans and social creatures, we do have to live in a world populated by those of other beliefs. Science has a very basic set of beliefs and assumptions; in addition to helping humanity and all that good stuff, it was designed to be naturalistic and empirical in order to form conclusions that are acceptable to all with similar conceptual devices(human senses) and reasoning(logic). This is why once religion is introduced, it isn't classfied as science. It's philosophy, theology or whatever you want to call it; it requires beliefs and assumptions not implicit in science and that is where things get hairy.

I also agree... and Darwinism is not science, but religion masquerading as science.

I still don't understand how evolution can possibly be a religion. Just because certain people make religous or philosophical belief systems based on it doesn't change the pure science itself. For example, three different belief systems worship the God of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Does that mean that God does not exist just because Christians and Muslims interpret Him differently from Jews? Of course not! To say that evolution is religion just because some interpret it that way is, well, wrong. There's just no other way I can say it.

Well... Evolution, as astrophysics indeed share with astrophysics what could be seen as a flaw to be seen as science. The importance of historicity, and the fact that they can't be repeated. And even if they could they would probably lead to a completely different result.

Nevertheles, and not like ID, it works with hypotheses than can be proved wrong (or not as it is yet the case) and use nothing more than just the natural laws (occam razor). And definitely avoid hypothesis than cannot be true or false.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Canalon wrote:Well... Evolution, as astrophysics indeed share with astrophysics what could be seen as a flaw to be seen as science. The importance of historicity, and the fact that they can't be repeated. And even if they could they would probably lead to a completely different result.

Nevertheles, and not like ID, it works with hypotheses than can be proved wrong (or not as it is yet the case) and use nothing more than just the natural laws (occam razor). And definitely avoid hypothesis than cannot be true or false.

Evolution, as it is argued, cannot be proven wrong. It is non-falsifiable and therefore should be disregarded as science, according to the evolutionists' own criteria.

Evolution has been falsified many times... and every time it is another post hoc theory is proposed, invoking unknown hypothetical laws of science and unknown hypothetical conditions that somehow allowed for its occurance. Any false theory could remain viable using that line of reasoning.

One example (I can list several): Lack of transitional species in the fossil record. Now we have people like Gould saying that evolution "predicts" very few transitionals because of "punctuated equilibrium", a post hoc theory set forth in an attempt to reconcile evolution with the obvious facts of nature which run counter to the theory. No explanation is offered as to how such a theory would actually work... it is merely invoking unknown forces that allowed for evolution to occur. Thus, by establishing such a theory, the general evolution remains intact, at least in many peoples' imagination.

example number two: abiogenesis: It has been demonstrated to be mathematically impossible for DNA to self-assembly, regardless of the mechanism proposed. Thus, the entire Theory of evolution by natural selection is demolished.

example number three: the existence of the feather. Darwin himself admitted that if any complex structure could be found to exist that could not have come about by gradualism, the theory would fall apart. No one has ever offered any explanation of how a feather could come about by natural selection. There are innumerable other examples of irreducible complexity in nature.

1. Have you actually read any of Gould's books on this subject?
2. It has never been correctly calculated. Calculations such as by Hoyle have already been debunked.
3. Miller's excellent article on how blood clotting(supposedly one of the irreducibly complex processes) could occur.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... tting.html. And yes, there is a(actually several) simpler mousetrap than the one proposed by Behe.
Besides, irreducible complexity basically boils down to "I can't think of a way for this to happen, therefore there isn't one." Bull.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

It has never been correctly calculated. Calculations such as by Hoyle have already been debunked.

No, the calculations have been ridiculed, not "debunked". Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how DNA could form on its own.

Besides, irreducible complexity basically boils down to "I can't think of a way for this to happen, therefore there isn't one." Bull.

Evolutionists have the audacity to suggest that it's illogical to disbelieve something that makes no scientific sense. Life does not come from non-life. That is an observable fact. You cannot come up with any possible pathway as to how it could. You expect others to just believe it happened. You provide no evidence, and can't even conceptualize such an occurance. We are expected to just accept that it happened. Is that your idea of objective scientific inquiry?

False. There are, in fact, many, many species that fit the definition of No explanation is offered as to how such a theory would actually work... it is merely invoking unknown forces that allowed for evolution to occur.transitional. Australopithicus (apes to man), Archaropteryx (dinos to birds), Ambulocetus (ungulates to whales), and Icthyostega (fish to amphibians) are all transitional species in their own separate lineages. And that's just five out of many more examples.

abiogenesis

We've already addressed this and determined that abiogenesis, although improbable, is possible. If God was behind it, as you and I believe He was, it becomes downright expected. Furthermore, abiogenesis is different from evolution. Evolution, from the days of St. Augustine, through the days of Darwin, right up to today, remains a theory of how life evolved after it was created, not about how it was created in the first place.

the existence of the feather

I must confess that I don't much about feathers, but I think I remember reading once that its underlying genetic code is very similar to that of a reptile scale, so the transition is perhaps not that hard to conceive. Still, I'll get back to this in more detail once I have more time to do more background research, probably this weekend. Also, I know of several other "irreducibly complex systems" that are actually perfectly explicable in evolutionary terms, including blood clotting, the structure of the eye, and antifreeze, so I wouldn't be surprised if the feather turned out to be no different.

No explanation is offered as to how such a theory would actually work... it is merely invoking unknown forces that allowed for evolution to occur.

Unknown forces? I believe it's called natural selection, and it works.

mithril:

Besides, irreducible complexity basically boils down to "I can't think of a way for this to happen, therefore there isn't one." Bull.

False. There are, in fact, many, many species that fit the definition of No explanation is offered as to how such a theory would actually work... it is merely invoking unknown forces that allowed for evolution to occur.transitional. Australopithicus (apes to man), Archaropteryx (dinos to birds), Ambulocetus (ungulates to whales), and Icthyostega (fish to amphibians) are all transitional species in their own separate lineages. And that's just five out of many more examples.

Interpretation of the fossil record is highly subjective, and all of the examples you gave are very questionable. Australopithicus, for example, can easily be classified as an ape and nothing more. Ambulocetus was a quadraped mammal... there is no evidence that it is a true precursor to a whale. Evolutionists don't know the meaning of "weighing the evidence". THey pick out a few possible transitional species, overstate the significance of their findings, and think they've proven something. THis they do while ignoring the conspicuous lack of the thousands to millions of transitional species that would surely have existed if evolution occurred.

We've already addressed this and determined that abiogenesis, although improbable, is possible.

No, you've stated that it's possible but provided no evidence. If so, where is it?

Furthermore, abiogenesis is different from evolution. Evolution, from the days of St. Augustine, through the days of Darwin, right up to today, remains a theory of how life evolved after it was created, not about how it was created in the first place.

Abiogenesis has for decades been a part of evolutionary theory. To arbitrarily divorce yourself from it does not leave the theory of evolution intact. The implausibility of abiogenesis proves that intelligent design is operative in nature.

the existence of the feather

I must confess that I don't much about feathers, but I think I remember reading once that its underlying genetic code is very similar to that of a reptile scale, so the transition is perhaps not that hard to conceive. Still, I'll get back to this in more detail once I have more time to do more background research, probably this weekend. Also, I know of several other "irreducibly complex systems" that are actually perfectly explicable in evolutionary terms, including blood clotting, the structure of the eye, and antifreeze, so I wouldn't be surprised if the feather turned out to be no different.

All of the explanations given by evolutionists are extremely generalized and non-specific... they have to be. You cannot go from a scale to a feather through natural selection, from a non-flying mammal to a bat, from a reptile to a flying bird. You can generalize and make it sound believable, but critical details are ALWAYS left out. None of the examples you've given are adequately explained.

Unknown forces? I believe it's called natural selection, and it works.

I believe I was referring to punctuated equilibrium.

Besides, irreducible complexity basically boils down to "I can't think of a way for this to happen, therefore there isn't one." Bull.

And why is that illogical. Should I believe something could evolve just because it's the popular dogma of the day? The evolutionist mindset is:
"Even though I can't imagine how it happened, it must have somehow happened and someday evolution will provide the answer." They always have a predrawn conclusion that evolution is true. It never occurs to them that the reason they can't imagine it is because it is impossible.